Talk:Smallville/Archive 2

Bias

There is trouble with links of the characters of dis series. Some, like Luthor, Lionel, Cloe and the characters created for the show are O.K. Some others like Clark, Lana's and Clark's parents link to COMIC BOOK pages.

Please sign your comments. As for the character pages, if they go to the comics it's because that is the place they originated from, and the Smallville portion is mentioned there. If they go to their own page it's because they are not part of the comic book lore. Bignole 23:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Cast

Ok, I think we need to all sit down and figure out what we are going to consider is what in the cast list. This can get confusing, especially when they decide to keep someone, or drop them. Jenson was supposed to be a regular cast member, and even was in the credits, but wasn't in every episode and was dropped at the end of the season. How many episodes should we require to list their status as (Season ...) or (Recurring Season...)? I think if they reach a certain number of episodes they should be upgraded. I mean, Lois started as a recurring character but since she gets the same amount of episodes every season, and has been consistant since season 4, it seems right to just list her status as (Season 4 - present). Bignole 22:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be good to note that Shawn Ashmore appeared in Season 1 episode 12 as well as season 3 episode 9 as the character Eric Summers. Shawn is the twin brother of Aaron Ashmore who is playing the character Jimmy Olson. If it doesnt fall into a regular character catagory then it would be good to add a trivia heading to note this info. M8gen

I know that only 2 appearances isn't a regular cast member. Sarah Carter (Alicia) was in 3 episodes but she wasn't a regular, nor a recurring character. She was merely a special guest. What I'm trying to find out is what should establish a recurring role from a regular role. Bignole 04:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

i assumed he was since Aaron has only appeared in 1 episode so far that has aired and is listed on IMDB as season 6 ep1 and season 6 ep 3(which has not aired yet)M8gen

Aaron is going to be in more than just 2 episodes, he was just put up on the list a little two early. Bignole 11:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

makes sense to wait then. any thoughts on adding a trivia section? the twin thing made me so curious and i researched it and it wasnt til i looked at images that i noticed the twin factor. i thought i had imagined seeing aarons face in the show already. M8gen

Lost (TV series)

I think we could start taking a page out of their book. Bignole 02:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Bio (Smallville)

Howcome lex gets his own "Lex Luthor (Smallville)" page and Clark and Lana don't? I think it's safe to say the 3 are in the same situation and therefore should be treated the same way in wikipedia... aren't they?--201 03:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This has already been brought up. I don't know why Lex has his own page. I'll rectify that accordingly and place a "merge" tag on the smallville page, because it shouldn't be there. Bignole 03:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia sections are usually discouraged. It's more advisable to include a note in the test where he is mentioned. Also, even if it's superficial, it could be good to just have a reference to where someone else mentions that little fact. I mean it's obvious that they are twins, but sometimes it's good to have all your ducks in a row, and currently the main article is plagued with little citations. Bignole 11:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

you are replying to my post about the twins, but where did my post go? nevermind, its above in a differenct areaM8gen

Oh, ok. I guess I'm confused. Cloe and Lionel have bios, but they are secondary... Lana, Lois and Clark are main, but don't have bios. It's weird, but they do have thier own page covering all versions of the character... on the other hand, the smallville versions are so different, that as the Lex (Smallville) article proved, they could have their own articles. They are based on DC Comics characters that have full articles (missing much Smallville info, though), but they have had biguer roles than those of Cloe and Lionel.

Although you're right maybe it is getting too trivial. If wikipedia has clear policies against trivia, we souldn't be breaking them.--201 18:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Side character boxes

I noticed some articles like Sydney Bristow, Jack Bauer, Goku and even Lex Luthor (Smallville) have those, I think it'd be neat for the Smallville bios (which ever you choose to have) to have similar devices. Wikipedia seems to be following that format with most tv characters. I've been told to design one myself, but I'm not a systems engeneer. Another option is using the Lex (Smallville) box and simply change the data. In my experience that works too. I hope you find this observation useful. Thanks--201 18:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking? Bignole 19:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

User:201 is a confirmed sockpuppet of a blocked user. CovenantD 23:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging with Smallville (comic)

I went to Smallville (comic) and it stated at the top there was a debate about whether it should be merged with this one. Frankly I think that's a bad idea, because they are completely different. One is a TV SHOW the other is a fictional place within comics. Mrja84 01:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning was "it's all about the show", which is false. So, no the page isn't going to be merged. I don't think anyone would be able to merge it really, it's two separate mediums. This page needs some work, but it is going to stay right here. Bignole 01:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Smallville High School

The school article is a mere stub that doesn't have enough unique info to justify a separate article.

• Support CovenantD 04:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• I don't even think it needs to be "merge", just deleted. The information is kind of already on the page, if there's nothing more to it that can be done it probably just needs to be deleted outright. Bignole 04:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• That works also. CovenantD 04:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Talon (Smallville)

Not enough unique info to justify an article. CovenantD 01:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree - The Talon is a location on the Smallville TV series, one that isn't even heavily used in the latest episodes of Smallville. It should be merged with Smallville or done with alltogether

I agree - lacks sufficient notability anyway Wisdom89 01:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think my comments about the previous section kind of apply here. There's no reason to corrupt a page with needless fan information, especially when it already has enough work finding sources to back up the "out-of-universe" stuff. Bignole 03:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to turn them into redirects rather than go through the bother of an AfD and wanted to get some comments before going ahead. CovenantD 17:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge, then go ahead and create redirects. - Ivan

Strong agree. The Talon isn't notable enough to deserve its own article, anyway. It should be merged into a separate section of Smallville (TV series). --silverBULLET(x3) 20:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagree - The Talon is a separate place from the rest of Smallville. How are you going to put the history of the talon in Smallville (TV series) without making it seem out of place?

What about maybe a section on Smallville locations or turning the talon article into a bigger thing about the other locations on smallville. Right now I'm too lazy but some devoted fan? The kent farm, metropolis, the daily planet, smallville high, lex luthor's mansion, the fortress of solitude?... maybe lexcorp. The entire show practically takes place in these few locations and the show does develop a small and slightly unique history for each one. Or it could just be left to the smallville wiki.--Torourkeus 04:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've performed the merge. Jkelly 23:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

some one edit it and remove some stuff (Important) --Sharif Aly Fouad 20:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of images

I understand that only a liimited number of copyright images can be managed under fair-use on wikipedia, but is having the image of the original actress of Martha really notable in the universal context of this page. Of course we can't use a heap of pictures, but surely an image of Clark would serve a better purpose in this situation!? Smallvillefan 15:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The image of the "original" Martha is used in context with the "original" PILOT, which didn't use Annette O'Toole. How would showing Clark benefit a sentence that says "Martha was recast after the original Pilot was filmed for unknown reasons; Cynthia ... was originall cast." ? The image is meant to prove she was in the pilot. Clark was never recast. Bignole 16:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh maybe you did not understand what I was trying to say, my point is that the page is 31 kilobytes long right? Yet we devote an entire image to two lines of text (After the pilot for the series had already been finished, due to unknown reasons, Cynthia Ettinger was replaced with Annette O'Toole (who played Lana Lang in 1983's Superman III), and Cynthia's parts were reshot with Annette O'Toole.) I just don't see how it is important enough to warrant an image? As it clearly says the parts were re-shot, so what significance does it hold now? It is merely a piece of trivia that is aplicable to the pilot only, so why should there be an image of it on the main Smallville page? Maybe the pilot episode page, but not here! Surely early promo posters/cast image or something would be way more beneficial to the average reader? Sorry, but when I looked at the page I just thought wtf does this have to do with anything? I just think it is odd that the ONLY image used throughout the entire page (excluding top/dvd covers) is of that...? Smallvillefan2 04:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall the text having another source to verify Cynthia's presence, thus the image is our only proof of this happening. That is why the image is there, because it acts as a source for the text, because that particular bit of information needs citation; and apparently that was all the original editor could find to prove it, minus some IMDb information. If you can find a valid, reliable source to take the place of the image then ok. IMDb is not one of those sources either, just in case your first choice is that website. Bignole 04:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah ok, I did not know about that. I'll have a look around for an article or something then. Smallvillefan2 04:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• kryptonsite has an article about the character that says Annette came into the part of Martha to replace Cynthia Ettinger, who played her in the Smallville pilot....I guess something like that is appropriate, though it does not mention the re-shooting... Smallvillefan2 05:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My problem is that, even though Kryptonsite is usually right and one of our sources for the show, it's only barely mentioned in the article and could be easily questioned. See if there is anything else, otherwise we may have to just use that. Bignole 11:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for re-writing the article

Looking at Lost and a number of other pages, I would like to suggest we overhaul this page:

• • Re-write the introduction, to give a nice overview of the whole article, as oppose to focusing so much on current events (The CW) and ratings.
  • Re-write the History of the show section into something similar (does not have to be exact) to Lost_(TV_series)#Production, meaning, we merge the gallery/production into here.
  • On the gallery, I think it is very fortunant to have all these photos, but maybe we should chose one or two for the proposed Production section, and have the rest on the Wiki commons.
  • De-list/de-table the Cast and characters section, and re-write into a nice couple of paragraphs, as well as merging Clark's powers, unless we can massively expand the section, but as it is, it is just a very short list. Either merge or re-write Appearances by other DC Comics characters as well.
  • Re-write Soundtracks into a Music section with a lot more details, and split the tracks/CDs off into their own soundtrack page.
  • Clean up External links, there really shouldn't be two sub-headings for such a section.
  • Clean-up References, there must be a universal system used here, not numerous variations.
  • Merge Seasons into Series history, using Main article: for each area.
  • Re-write DVD releases into something like Lost_(TV_series)#DVD_releases.
  • Re-write Awards and nominations into an Impact/Reception section, dealing with notable awards and nominations, success, ratings, critcal reaction etc.
  • Write a good section on Allusions, and having a Main article: link as well. Section would just give an overview of the use of allusions in the series.

So please discuss these ideas, so we can work on getting this article to (hopefully) the same level as Lost and some of the other feature articles. Reelusa89 13:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of it sounds good, though I would look at other Featured Articles (television series) for other comparisons as well, because not all are done the same way. I'm not sure what you are referring to with the "References" section, I'm not aware of different variations of that section. We do not need to create all these "main article" pages for the sections. There doesn't need to be a main article page for "Series History", and there are already links at the bottom for the Seasonal Pages. There isn't a "Main Article" for the "Allusions" page anymore, because it was determined to be all Original Research. I like the idea behind a small paragraph detailing how they use the "allusions", but it would require quite a few sources. I was thinking of overhauling all the "by season overviews" and replace them with interviews with Gough and Millar about their intended direction of each season (requiring many sources for interviews before and after each season). I think that would better describe those sections. The External links section should be trimmed down to the most popular "further reading" sites, and not every other site imaginable. We don't need a "soundtrack" main article. The West Wing (TV series) has a nice "Critical Reaction" section, sort of like what you are talking about, at least from what I gathered. Arrested Development also has some of the same tables and lists that this articles has. I think you have a lot of good ideas for improving this article, but I also think that we don't need to revamp the entire page to look like LOST, when some sections are already designed fine, they just need expansion. The biggest problem with this article is that it lacks A LOT of sources. 13:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was a quick reply :) Hi Bignole. Firstly, I didn't mean to totally base a lot of it on Lost, I just used it to gather a lot of ideas, and sure, we need to look at all the other feature TV articles. About the Allusions page, I didn't know it had been deleted, nonetheless, we should still create a section which talks about the creator's intentions, and common themes and so on (and yes, keeping out any original research). With the References, what I meant is the actual external link and description/title differ, for example, some spell out the full html, whereas others use the actual link as the title page, and others don't actually list the proper title, rather a description (eg. Freak of the Week criticism (3).). About Series history, I just don't see the point of having a seperate section to list the sub-articles for each season, when they could be linked under their own section in Series history. I love your idea for the seasons section, with writing in the intentions of the creators, as this would eliminate a lot of original research/opinion...on that, maybe the seasonal success/criticism (freak of the week etc) could be moved to the proposed Impact/Reception. And yeah, the The_West_Wing_(TV_series)#Critical_reactions is pretty much what I was thinking about. Fair-enough about the soundtrack main pages as well. My only problem with a lot of lists/tables is that (from what I have gathered) they are not well received by FAC reviewers, and where possible it should be text, and I agree we should'nt look too much at the Lost page, but I think their Lost_(TV_series)#DVD_releases section is very good. ThanksReelusa89 14:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The "References" section is a section that catelogs all the in-text citations (all the 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5s you see within the text), that isn't the same as those "external links" that are just going to websites. I'm still not following what you mean for the "format" of the Season sections. Right now they ARE under the "Series History" section, they are just part of "sub sections" to be able to edit easier. If you mean to place them all under 1 subsection, so that if you edit Season 1 you have the option to edit Season 6 in the same block, then ok...that would be fine. It will take some work to find interviews with Gough and Millar about each Season, seeing as this is Season 6 currently. The LOST DVD section also has more information than just DVD releases. Right now that is all we have, so that is why it is in table format instead of a paragraph format. The "Chloe's Chronicles" and such stuff from the top could have an expanded section with the DVD releases. If we could find out more info for the DVDs I think it would be fine to expand them into paragraph format. Bignole 14:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I guess I'm not really explaining what I mean about the references, but I guess it's not really important. About the seasons, what I mean is instead of having this:

Season 1

'The first season was a tremendous success, but some fans balked at the frequent plot device of a villain (or outcast classmate) deriving their power from Kryptonite exposure and appearing in only one episode, becoming known as the "freak of the week....

We have:

Season 1

Main article: Smallville (season 1)

'The first season was a tremendous success, but some fans balked at the frequent plot device of a villain (or outcast classmate) deriving their power from Kryptonite exposure and appearing in only one episode, becoming known as the "freak of the week....

Thus the Seasons section is not needed after the Series history section...about the DVD section, maybe we could change it to Other media and releases or something, and yeah, include "Chloe's Chronicles" and so on. Maybe it would be a good idea to set up Talk:Smallville (TV series)/draft? Reelusa89 14:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that is what I thought you meant originally, and that was why I said it seemed redundant to have a template at the bottom that linked to the Seasons, and then link them again up top. But I see where you are going with it. I guess I don't see a real problem with doing it that way for the Seasons. I think a "draft" page would be fine. We could use it to work on one section at a time, so that we don't bog down the page with things we aren't working on yet. Bignole 14:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bignole, I have started messing around on the draft page. I would like to try and merge Cast/Powers/DC characters into one section like The_West_Wing_(TV_series)#Cast. I havent really done anything yet, just kind of swapped things around a bit. What would you think of having the show title card/logo in the top box instead of the 2006 cast, and moving the cast image to the cast section? And yeah I havent really done anything yet, so please (if you want to) just mess around with it. I'm going to go off and look for more sources and info/ideas. Thanks!Resa99 12:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I would just put the sections you are going to work on in the "draft" page, and remove the rest. It will become cluttered and you will lose track of what you are doing. As for the picture, the 'cast' picture at the top is the Season 6 cast, and doesn't have everyone from the show. It's just an updated picture. It probably should be replaced by the show's logo, but only a good quality logo. As for the cast, if you have a scanner and one of the DVDs you could scan the back yourself and crop the excess stuff off and use that image for the cast. Bignole 14:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and found a screen shot of the title credits, so that we have more of an appropriate primary image. Bignole 22:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This article has a lot of good material, but it is weirdly organized (15 items in the TOC?) and kind of long. My suggestion would be to group some of the related sections together as subsections (also some of the material in the lead is detail that should be moved down. Some of this might be summarized and separated out into subordinate pages. Seems like a lot of people are interested in the topic, so editors should think about improving this to make it a good article.

I'm also seeing some specific comments that are quite detailed, where other people have put fact tags. If one wanted to clean that up, it would be possible to go through the page history, see who put down the detailed comments, go to their user page and ask them where they got their information. Avt tor 16:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking the "Series history" could be condensed into a couple paragraphs for the series as a whole, instead of just overviews of each season. Then, adding "Clark's powers" as a sub-heading in that, since that really deals with the "fictional universe", instead of production or other "out of universe" information. That bit of "trivia" could be moved to the production information, seeing as it's a reflection of how Smallville may be influenced. Bignole 17:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

why do some of the wikified links lead to the smallville wikia?

for dr. claire foster, for instance, along with other links within smallville articles? is this allowed?

Of course it's allowed. They do not have pages on Wikipedia, and there isn't enough information on them to support a page, so we linked to the closest thing. Wikia generally has information that isn't suitable for an encyclopedia, but it had something so we linked it there. Not every DC character has a page here. Bignole 23:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Region 4 Season 5

Was Season 5 of Smallville really released on November 23 for region 4, or is that just an error? I mean, it's December 9 now, and I haven't seen it in stores yet. - King Ivan 03:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Hmmm...Let me do some checking. Who's in Region 4 so that I can know where to look. Bignole 03:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Region 4 is Australia right? Then I very much doubt it. Season 5 is currently airing on TV. I own 1 to 4, and have yet to see 5 available here. Davey4

Season 5 is so delayed there that it's airing now? I know they have delays in certain things, but over a year? Bignole 16:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a site where I can verify the release dates of the other Region 4 DVDs? Bignole 18:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Smallville is really far behind in Australia because it was taken of the air for a period of about 2 years, and since around the beginning of 2006, Channel 10 has been airing from mid-season 2 all the way to Season 5, being aired right now. But still, I haven't seen Season 5 in stores anywhere around where I live, so I don't think it's out in Region 4 yet. - King Ivan 06:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What about the other seasons. Is there a store that I can visit only to check the release dates of the other region 4 season. (BTW, you know you could probably order season 5 off Amazon.com and ship it overseas). Bignole 13:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The other 4 are definitely out in Australia; I own the first four seasons. I don't know about ordering season 5 from Amazon though. Wouldn't it be an overseas version and you'd need a multi-region DVD player to play it? - King Ivan 03:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I know they are out already, I just wanted to know if there was an Australian website where I can add citations to verify "when" they were released. Everything's about citations. As for the DVD player. I thought I read that Australia was demanding that they make all DVDs Region 0, so that you aren't forced to do that. Bignole 04:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well, I don't know where to find a source to verify when they were released. - King Ivan 04:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Cast and Characters

The descriptions of each character in this section reek almost entirely of original research. Wisdom89 18:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

They were supposed to start with just basic information about the characters in the show, that can be viewed from watching, and then find some sourcing for the actors in the role. Several edits have added more information that isn't necessary. Trim back as you see fit, I'll see if I can find some cites for how actors were chosen and such. Bignole 21:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Loose canon

I've got a number of concerns. First, "only Kal-El has flown"? IIRC, Clark brought down that ICBM... Second, has the show bible established how much of the character interrelationship is canon? Not being a fan of Supes, I always thought he didn't meet Lois until he joined the Planet. (Then again, in Jerry & Joe's origin, Clark is an orphan.) Have you noticed, if they intro Wonder Woman, they could spin off Justice League? (Or, seeing how young they are, Teen Titans. Maybe they could rent the suit from Chris O'Donnell.) Finally, does anybody wish somebody would tell Olllie, "You know, you look just like Vanth Dreadstar?" Or see a '53 Stude Commander (or '94 Taurus) & say, "That's really you."? Rorschach 01:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to the missle in Season 5, Clark didn't "fly" to it, or "bring it down", he jumped on it, rode it into the upper atmosphere and then fell back down with it. There was no flying involved. The rest of your comments aren't really contributive and I don't know how to answer them other than Smallville is its own universe and not a "prequel" to anything. Bignole 02:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Since you aren't really a fan of Supes, it begs the question of why you would flippantly post in the talk section (um, hellooo? McFly?). As well, Vanth Dreadstar was a ripoff from beginning to end of at least 4 scifi movies and at least three DC heroes, all of which pre-dated Dreadstar by at least fifteen to 20 years. Its a pretty obscure refernce, even for a comic book fan. The creators said at the beginning of the series that we would never see Clark fly. When Clark wasn't Clark (and forgive me for not remembering the episodes when someone else was inhabiting Clark's body), he was flying all over the world, grabbing bits of an artifact. This translates, I think, to the idea that Clark is capable of flying, but isn't mentally prepared to do that. Sort of a psychological thing about leaving home or rather, leaving the nest and flying on his own. I personally have issues with Ollie making appearances in the Green Arrow costume and all. Frankly, have issue with him beign there at all, considering he is supposed to be the biggest liberal this side of Abbie Hoffman. The slot could have been better filled by a young Bruce Wayne. I imagine that hwas the original plan, but movies tend to trump tv shows, and the copyright issues likey screwed that pooch. I don't think the series is supposed to be about the costumes and all the superhero trappings. In actuality, it looks all rather silly, considering the overriding theme of the series is how a young man learns who he is, so the costume means something when it finally goes on. Avoiding costumes is a good thing, since the good and simple folk at the tv studios don't get what the costumes are supposed to represent, and instead focus on muscles, cleavage and nifty sfx. Just my take on it, though.Arcayne 03:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Aquaman

Aquaman is not really a spin off is it? Maybe that section in the introduction should be rewritten a little. Maybe "lead to the creation" or something? Davey4 06:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

reps considered it a spin-off. A "spin-off" doesn't necessarily have to mean it ties directly to the show it started with. I understand your point, but Gough and Millar have always referred to it as a spin-off. Bignole 07:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

even more recently? There is a bit of a conflict:

• The actor who plays Aquaman is different in the Smallville Series and Aquaman pilot.
• The actor who plays Aquaman in the pilot plays Green Arrow in Smallville.
• ALTHOUGH: I guess if you consider the introduction of a character in one show leading to the creation of another show (regardless of who plays him or whether the character was originally created in an entirely different medium) then I guess it is a spin off.--Torourkeus 19:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they considered Ritchson for the part because of fan response to him in general (although they kept him for the upcoming Justice episode, probably for continuity efforts). I don't think Aquaman was a direct spin-off, but apprently in the pilot they made reference to some of the things that AC says in Smallville. In "Aqua" the dolphin incident is mentioned, and in the Pilot the incident actually takes place. I think they wanted to start fresh, and that required a lot of changes. The fact that Justin Hartley is not Oliver Queen is only because the show wasn't picked up, and Gough and Millar liked his performance in Aquaman that they recast him into the Smallville family. There is a good chance that if the show is picked up (it's had great response on the internet) that they will recast Arthur Curry, because of the now established character of Oliver Queen on Smallville. Bignole 19:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Powers

Um, Clark can fly now and nobody seems to have mentioned it. I don't have the time or patience right now (sorry for being annoying for that) to do the research but I know Clark can fly now, or at least do a kind of Ultra jump. It was first shown in the episode where the crazy kid shot off a rocket, but there wasn't a show that emphasized the power. So I'm not sure whether it's an ultra-jump or flying. Of course, If you are a nerd like me than you heard about the legal problems of a flying Clark Kent in Smallville, so they may have explained it away as an extension of his super strength (only, you know, through his legs). Anyway, if anyone has a clue, please let me know.

(btw, I know Kal-El flew earlier than this but we're focused on clark here.--Torourkeus 19:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's definitly an "ultra-jump", something he has been doing for quite a while. And he can always fly, it seems, he just doesn't know it, or know how to - the bad (black kryptonite) Clarke clearly flew in one episode, and in episode 2 (I think it was), he was levitating over his bed while dreaming, falling to and breaking the bed upon awakening. - Matthew238 01:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't a "bad" Clark, he was a "reprogrammed" Kal-El, who knew of all his abilities. Clark doesn't know how to fly. Levitating isn't flying. Bignole 02:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Powers and abilities of Superman: The Power of Flight: As depicted in Superman Returns, this ability allows him to maneuver precisely in any direction as well as hover. Freddie1988 13 February 2007

Superman Returns is NOT Smallville. Smallville is its own thing. Secondly, the unmistakenable word in the section is "ESTABLISHED" which means the writers have clearly stated that this is a power, which usually means an entire episode is devoted to the power. Now, the only time this hasn't occurred is when Kal-El flew in "Crusade". Clark Kent has never flown voluntarily. He's awakened "hovering" and had dreams of flying, and flown with others that have the ability, but he himself has never consciously flown anywhere.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  04:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't lecture me about Clark's established powers because I was the one who removed any reference to flying during the course of the series because CLARK KENT has not flown consciously. Furthermore, I was just making the point that hovering is considered flying. If you look at any article listing superhero powers they include hovering under the entry of flying. You can't just discount the fact that hovering in one place and travelling through the air are both considered flying. If you are going to try to justify removing the hovering thing from the article you must justify it with true claims. Freddie1988 13 February 2007

Citing Wikipedia is a reference for something on Wikipedia is not considered reliable. You can't say "it says so here on Wikipedia that so and so...", that's like saying "well my article is crap, but it looks like this article". Regardless, Clark wasn't "hovering" consciously, he was doing it in his sleep. We are not discounting his ability to do so, but the fact that he doesn't have any control over it. Hence why it was removed completely. When you see him hover in a conscious manner, then it can be added.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  04:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Who said I was citing Wikipedia? There are numerous sites on the internet that support the hovering/flying thing. And, once again, I never said that he flew or hovered consciously. I just said that you can't remove it solely on the assumption that hovering isn't flying. Freddie1988 13 February 2007

First, hovering and flying are two distinct processes. To hover is in essence just levitation, while flying involves directional motion. A helicopter can either fly, or it can hover, but doing one isn't doing both. Humingbirds can hover and they can fly. There's a disctinction about the process. Just because running involves the same tools as standing, that doesn't mean they are the same. Now, to the article. Its removal was in reference to Clark's abilities. Hovering itself is not an "ability" that he has, that is why it was removed. You don't see him hovering around Smallville in any of the episodes (minus dream sequences). In regards to your recent edit, I agree that Kal's mention is more fancruft trivia than anything and I thought you had removed it before (but I checked the history and saw that it was restored right afterward). It seems to all go along with another debate about Silver kryptonite. We know that it comes from Brainiac, we saw that, but it's an interpretation without reliable sources to verify (which goes for flying/hovering as well). Some people interpret some of his jumps as "flying", but they are interpretations.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  05:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Flying and hovering are different processes, like running and walking, but they both fall under the same category. Running and walking are two parts of basic human movement. Hovering and flying are part of the process of flight. Superman's power of flight includes travelling through the air as well as just hovering in one place, so even though the two may be seperate things, they both fit under one category. That is why, like you said before, if Clark hovers on his own, it is a great step towards his achieving true controlled flight. That's all I was trying to say. Freddie1988 13 February 2007

Freak of the Week

What exactly happens to the freaks of the week. Some clearly die at the end of the episode, but others don't, and don't lose there memory either, and have clearly witnessed Clark's powers? - Matthew238 01:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To quickly answer your question, no one knows. But, please refrain from "forum-esque" talk, as it isn't constructive to the article. Bignole 02:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had intended to write more, related to the article. For example, the Overview (and Series histor) section mentions the criticism of the plot device of having a villian created at the beginning of each episode by Kryptonite, but no mention of the fact that many episodes are ended without the villian being properly disposed off (something not mentioned in the Villain of the week article either). - Matthew238 04:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That wouldn't be mentioned here unless critics said something about it. Bignole 05:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I guess some are put away for their crimes or whatever, I think there is an episode where Clark visits Lex in an institution, and sees a number of his old enemies there? Apart from that, I don't really know. Srfanone 06:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Reviews, Ratings, Costs, Ad Revenues?

I think the article should have more information about the actual production of the show. Like, critical reception and reviews, how well the show is doing compared to other shows (I heard it was number #16 in January), and what the show costs to produce and how much ad revenue it's generating, as well as dvd sales and merchandise. Does anyone know more about any of these? 69.220.2.188 04:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well if you come across that information let us know, it isn't very easy to do. Bignole 12:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Links, clean-up

This page really needs to sort out the external links section, having two subsections is excessive. Also that unverified template has been there for ages, time to clear out the (citationneeded) stuff imo. People have not acted on it, so get rid I say. In particular, all that stuff in the in the series history has got to go. Really, that section should not have any subsections or trivial things like that, it should be like three decent paragraphs and that is it. Davey4 14:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I say take out anything not cited. As for the external links, they should really only be the official CW page for the show, maybe other official pages from the CW that expand the universe of the show. If it's a reference then it's in the article already. As for the "History", I've made my suggestion up top. I think we can merge all those seasons into 1 sub section (like you said 3 or so paragraphs). They shouldn't be detailed, we already have seasonal pages for that. Bignole 16:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Re the external links: I don't have an opinion as to how many are useful, but I think it's meaningful to separate the official links from the external ones. The official ones are cute, aren't they? :) Kryptonsite is certainly important, I don't know the others.

The article could use plenty of summarization and trimming. However, I think a paragraph for each season is reasonable (at whatever length). I think this article could probably use a couple of major subpages, one for the universe (which could then be greatly trimmed here) and one for the characters (who could then be reduced to one- or two-line bullet points). Certainly a lot of the blah-blah gossip may not have to go on the main page.

As a rule I'd really like to see editors who object to uncited material give people time to do research instead of just yanking stuff quickly. In this particular case, the uncited comments are fairly low in relevance, so trimming them on that basis is reasonable, IMO. Avt tor 16:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We need to verify if those "official sites" really are "official". We do not need to list every fansite, Wiki isn't a repository of links. See external links. We don't need a standard paragraph for each season. Sometimes it's easier to blend the seasons together in a few paragraphs then separate them all individually. Remember, the show usually ends on cliff hangers that carry over each season. As for the uncited information, it's been uncited for quite a long time. We've given those editors a chance to come source it on the page, now it's here at the Talk page waiting for them. Bignole 17:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to tell the official sites from the domain name. Maybe they're not all important or up to date. (I think one of the sites on the official list doesn't belong there.) Like I said, I don't have an opinion about how many links there should be; I would not suggest that Wiki become a "repository of links", but I do think the distinction between official and other sites is useful, mainly because they contain official information not available elsewhere, and also because they're very good and useful sites generally (not to mention fun).

The season finales do end on cliffhangers, but these are pretty much plot transitions that change a bunch of character relationships and the overall setting. Each season generally tends to have its own localized story arc. I think if the section mashes seasons together it will make things less clear. If overall length is a problem, make each paragraph smaller. I could explain this more clearly at greater length, should that really be needed. Avt tor 17:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that we need to determine the true "officiality" of the sites. Who would really be official? I would think only the CW and Warner Brothers hold the right be "official", unless the creators of Smallville have created an exclusive website for the show. As for the fansites, the first of the two links I posted basically says that for topics that require "fansites", we should only use the most well known of them. We shouldn't be listing multiple fansites, because they generally do not contribute anything "additional" to the article that the article cannot cover itself. As for the seasons, one of my biggest issues is when people make 2 sentence paragraphs, to where you have 5 skinny paragraphs when you could have 2 well formed paragraphs. It will be "unclear" to have them blend together. You don't break up a film plot by "Acts", so it isn't hard to keep seasons together. It will help with the flow of reading the entire show's history. You can still easily distinguish each season from the next by incorporating a statement that clarifies that a new season has begun. Like season 1 for example; nothing really happens in that season, it's all about him coming to terms with being an alien, and the new friendships he develops with Lex and Lana, nothing major (like say learning of his father in season 2, or the Kawatche caves, etc etc). Bignole 17:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your definition of official sites (there do seem to be several) and that we should only list the most notable fan sites. As for the seasons, the short response is I don't see it the same way, but I've made my point and will let others comment. Avt tor 21:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think having subsections in the season history is not good, especially since some of the sections have just a stubb-ish paragraph. Re; External links, someone said that the ToC was aready massive, and is is almost unheard of to use subsections for External links, maybe use ";" instead of "===..."...or simply reduce them. I also think there are a number of articles that need to be created...such as List of places in Smallville, List of music in Smallville (like Buffyverse tracklist)...also, see Template talk:Smallville, as I think that template is in need of an update...anyone agree? Davey4 11:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also...can we removed that unverified notice now? Davey4 12:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The "series history" with no sub-sections would look like this:

Season 1 follows Clark in his first year of high school. At the start of the series, Clark is unaware of his alien origins. He already knows of his super speed and strength, but it isn't until he his hit by Lex Luthor's car that he learns of his invulnerability. The accident proves to be the beginning of a new friendship with Lex, and the rest of the season plays out with Clark developing x-ray vision, battling kryptonite-mutated people, and growing closer to his friend Lana Lang. Season 2 focused more of character and relationship development, than "freak of the week" episodes. Some of the minor story arcs involved Lex's growing conflict with his fater, Chloe digging into Clark's past, financial troubles for the Kents, Clark learning to control his new heat vision, and a vacillating romance between Clark and Lana. The major story arc focused on Clark discovering his Kryptonian origins, communicating with the disembodied spirit/will of his biological father, Jor-El, and learning to read Kryptonese. A "passing of the torch" moment occurs when Christopher Reeve, who played Superman in the 1970s and 1980s film series, appeared as Dr. Virgil Swann to provide Welling's Clark with information regarding his heritage. Season 3 saw the introduction of Clark's future Daily Planet editor Perry White; this began the starting point for other major characters from the DC universe to be introduced. The character of Pete Ross was essentially marginalized as a character, playing minor roles involving illegal street racing and being threatened by the F.B.I. to reveal Clark's secret. The character was ultimately written out of the show, explained by his inability to deal with keeping Clark's secret and the desire to move to Wichita, Kansas with his mother after his parents' divorce. Season 3's major story arc involved Clark disobeying his biological father, and trying to distance himself from the heritage he believed was about conquering Earth. Jonathan also develops a heart condition, because of a deal to that he makes with Jor-El to save Clark from himself, that would play out for several seasons.

Season 4 introduced Lois Lane, who becomes Clark's wife later in the Superman mythos. This season centered around three Kryptonian stones that were the key to unlocking the knowledge of the universe. This particular story arc would involve not just Clark, but Lex, Lana, Lionel, and new comer Jason Teague. Clark and Lex's friendship takes severe swirles downward, and Lionel's true nature begins to change ambiguously into the good father. Clark also meets Bart Allen, a future Justice Leaguer known as The Flash. Season 5 introduced several classic mythos elements into the series. Jonathan's heart problems finally come to a head as he suffers a major heart attack and dies, the Fortress of Solitude is built from the three Kryptonian stones, Professor Milton Fine, also known as the villain Brainiac, and Zod become major story arcs. Fine attempts to free Zod from the Phantom Zone, and uses Lex as Zod's vessel. A love triangle insues; Clark and Lana are finally able to express their true feelings and become a couple, but it is short lived when Clark begins to keep secrets from her again. Lana eventually turns to Lex. Victor Stone and Arthur Curry, two more DC superheroes, meet and befriend Clark. Season 6 showed the first glimpse of the Phantom Zone, which is inhabited by a society of exiled criminals from the "28 known galaxies". The destinies of Lionel and Lex play out in the aftermath of Lex's possession by Zod and Lionel's adoption as the oracle of Jor-El. One of the major story arcs involve several criminals escaping the Phantom Zone with Clark. At the beginning of the season, Clark is initially left uncertain and directionless as he soon realizes he has no one left to turn to in the aftermath of Lex/Zod's destruction. DC Comics characters Jimmy Olsen, Oliver Queen (and his superhero alias Green Arrow) and the Martian Manhunter are introduced this season; the first glimpse of the Justice League is also seen when Victor Stone, Arthur Curry, and Bart Allen all return to Smallville. Clark finally decides to accept who he really is, and the destiny that was in store for him, by making a vow to continue his training once all the escaped Phantom Zone criminals are either returned or destroyed.

It would be more like a film plot. Bignole 18:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncited sources

We are(have) removed all uncited information from the article. That information will be placed here until(if ever) a source can be provided for it. Please do not archive this list, ever, because it will never be closed until all sources are found, or the information is finally deemed unverifiable. Thank you. Bignole 16:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No source

• Michael Rosenbaum, once a consideration for Harvey Dent in Bruce Wayne, was cast as Lex Luthor due to his quiet, secretive nature,
• Miller and Gough who were only interested in the concept if they could make him lose the suit and the majority of his powers.
• the success of Songs in the Key of X prompted the release of a soundtrack album.
• Eric Johnson's character of Whitney Fordman, boyfriend to character Lana Lang, was also said to be underused and one-dimensional.
• Despite these criticisms the producers were instantly ordered to film at least two more seasons of the show.
• John Glover's Lionel Luthor character, ruthless business tycoon and father of Lex Luthor, was originally intended to only be a guest star on the show. Due to his popularity, however, he became a full time cast member for season two. As Johnson wished to leave the show, Whitney was then written out of the series.
• The third season was also moderately successful.
• To the chagrin of fans, however, Pete Ross was essentially marginalized [try and find critics that didn't like this]
• Gough has stated Jones wanted to leave the show due to lack of screen time.
• As of early 2006, Sam Jones has not made (and does not want to make) any return appearances
• Gough has said Pete could return if the right story arc is found for him.
• The Jules Verne Festival paid a special tribute to Smallville during a night special attended by 3,000 fans at the Rex Theatre in Paris, April 7, 2005. Creators and producers Alfred Gough and Miles Millar were presented with a Jules Verne Award Special, in the presence of actresses Allison Mack and Erica Durance, as well as Jean Jules Verne, the writer's great grandson.
• while Charmed had 7.7 million viewers.
• Painted hallways with the "Smallville Crows" logo remain inside Templeton. [broken cite, someone removed the original, need to find]

Belle Reve

Should Belle Reave be added as a possible sub topic? It's mostly because of several epsiodes having used the mental hospital as either setting or part of backstory

LadySatine 01:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Containing what information? Bignole 02:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just general background and what epsiodes it's a part of mostly.

LadySatine 02:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not very encyclopedic. Now, if you had 'out of universe' information on it, like where they actually film, if it's a real sanitarium or whatnot, that would be good. Then after we get all the production information from it, we can explain that it's an intricate part of Smallville. But just talking about the "places" doesn't hold any encyclopedic value. Bignole 02:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to all this so I'm learning as I venture. But I was thinking in terms of how Belle Reave related to various storylines and backstory

LadySatine 04:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you'd probably be interested in reading WP:WAF. It's about "writing about fiction". Bignole 05:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure correct spelling is Belle Reve, French for "beautiful dream". (Helps to know French to understand shows produced in Canada.) Avt tor 06:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is Belle Reve. And the hospital has been mentioned in the comics. Might it be possible for those you not signing your name to begin doing so?Arcayne 03:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Martian Manhunter

A mention has been made in the article under the header: "Appearances by other DC Comics characters" about the Martian Manhunter in the episodes. One cite has been provided supporting the ability to state equivically that the character played by Phil Morris was in fact the Martian Manhunter. However, the citable source does not meet the standards of WP:RS, being a partisan website that is little more than a rumor mill. If no better source can be found to cite the material, then it has to be removed. It doesn't matter if it is clear that the character portrayed was j'onn J'onzz; all that matter here in WP is whether we can cite the statements made, avoiding the pitfalls of original research (WP:OR). I hope someone can find a proper mainstream news-source that can put a name to Morris' character, as it would be a nice addition.Arcayne 03:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Look anywhere, he's is consistently cited as MM. An actual interview with Phil Morris here, and an interview with Al Gough here. I was merely using a citation that was being used on other pages of Wikipedia for Morris, but you want something a little more specific. There is also the thing about being bold, and you could have easily found any number of sources confirming the same thing. When you knows its accurate, and easily verifiable, and the only problem is the lack of "officiality" of the source, that is when you "be bold" and find a more proper source. If it's something that can be disputed, that's fine, but the character, and Phil Morris' involvement have been well known around the entertainment world for weeks now. Bignole 04:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Since you were able to find two sources - albeit from a fansite - why not use them instead? The "Be Bold" thing does not mean 'be lazy'. It doesn't matter if 'everyone' knows that Morris was cast as the Martian Manhunter. Until legitimate press - and I think that calling Kryptosite such is stretching the term to the utter breaking point - say so, it is not a citable source. If you want the legitimacy of reliability, the onus is upon you (and us as contributors and editors to WP) to provide that reliability. Quoting a fansource for hardcore reliable and un-spun information is like quoting a Republican blog site for the latest on how successful the Iraq War is. The problems are inherent and endemic.

Here is a pretty good standard for what qualifies as a reasonable, mainstream source for news. If you can obtain from the same source national and local news (and maybe a sports score or two), then it is a reliable source, as the people putting the news source together are not completely invested in simply one type of news (or in the case of Kryptosite, one subject). I went a looking and found THREE. Maybe if we could all stop treating this article like a fanfic departure point, it could be a tighter article. Sorry for all the harsh, but laziness is not a substitute for research.Arcayne 14:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

First, quoting a fansource that doesn't provide a reliable source of its own is one thing, but quoting one that actually conducts interviews with said individuals is another. Secondly, there is no "being lazy", as you are the first person to come along and dispute something that everyone else has agreed with. Lastly, I've seen your contributions and you worked in the MM page, right next to the very same sources that were quoted here. As a matter of fact, you edited a sentence that implied that it WAS Martian Manhunter, and didn't question the validity of that entire section (which was devoted to his appearance on Smallville). So, if you want to be a hypocrit about it, ok. Not all fansites are "dismissed", just as MySpace isn't dismissed in every case. In this case, Kryptonsite actually secured interviews with the creator and actor, and both confirmed MM's presence. It's one thing to be anal retentive on one page, and ignore the same thing on another. The Amazing thing is that you keep disputing something that THE CW has made clear for awhile. So again, I say that you are the only one coming here disputing something that has been well known for quite some time, trying to make it ambiguous as to who he really is just because they don't use the name "Martian Manhunter" or "J'onn J'onzz". Bignole 14:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am sure you are aware of WP policies enough to know to sign your posts. Please do so in the future. Allow me to be clear, since you seem keen on making a straw man argument here. I do think that the character was the Martian Manhunter. As an avid comic book reader, it is crystal clear to me that he is. However, the Wikipedian says that unless someone from the mainstream, unbiased media says as much, we do not - because of the caveat prohibiting us from original research - make that deductive leap. We simply don't. CW is not a mainstream source. Nor is ComicsContinuum or Kryptosite. Cite Variety, or another trade journal that has no vested interest in what the CW or Superman-driven media puts out in a press release. If Variety or some such mainstream news organ quotes the CW's press release of the Martian Manhunter being cast, then that's good enough for me, and good enough to meet WP's Reliable Source criteria. Otherwise, it remains uncitable and unusable. I am not making an effort to preserve ambiguity; I am ensuring on bewhalf of WP that everything - I repeat, everything - we say is supported by neutral, mainstream arguments outside the article. This is the purpose of WP, and not some fanfic repository. This is not amazing. This is not anal-retentivity; this is the job of us as contributors and editors. If you aren't prepared to do the work or be edited when your work is uncited or ill-prepared, don't contibute. Arcayne 15:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Geez. Quotes and information from a well-known media outlet is not an all-encompassing binding criteria for verifiability on Wikipedia. If Kryptonsite (or any other site for that matter) conducts an interview with the actor who portrays the character, or one of the creators of the show, then it is Wikipedia's function to report that it occurred. THAT is verifiability. It is merely one editor's opinion that the site is unreliable, crufty, or biased. Wikipedia doesn't make this distinction if the section is written properly. (i.e in an interview with Phil Morris, and according to the CW...etc..etc..) Wisdom89 17:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that should be the basis for my argument. While I guess I can understand why the casting for a tv show might not make for attractive news stories to the more reputable news media, I think it is nonsense for us to not even bother to seek out and select more credible citations. Rather than say incorrectly as fact that a person was cast in such and such role, it is more accurate to state that such and such source, which writes about [insert specific subject] has reproted that this person has been cast in such and such role. That is more accurate, and within the scope of RS.Verifiability is not the governing criteria here, whereas reliability is. Anyone can point to a KKK pamphlet and say, 'see, it is now verified that the Jews want to take over the world!' Reliability of that source comes into play at this point. Just because the CW says something does not elevate it to a reliable source. After all, they initially let fly that Chloe was the Manhunter, or some such nonsense. Concentrate less on finding sources that support what you want to say, and more on sources that speak an unvarnished and neutral truth. If you cannot find the latter, SAY SO, and don't simply shrug and accept the former.Arcayne 20:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about with Chloe and Manhunter? The problem is that you cannot simply dismiss sources as unreliable just because you don't like them. I know plenty of people that will site IMDb.com, and I can't stand it, especially when they tried to claim that Aunt May was Carnage. Does that tarnish its entire reliability? Does the fact that kryptonsite is a fansite completely dismiss it from being used? What about MySpace? Again, it's all about what is being presented. There was no opinion on Manhunter being used, unlike your example of the KKK which was based entirely on them publishing an opinion. Kryptonsite published and interview with the actor, who confirmed who he was; later another interview with the creators of the show confirming it. Now, what you are saying is that if the entire Jewish community comes out and says "yes we do want to take over the world", that unless someone like CNN (cause god knows they don't embelish) comes out and publishes the story then we cannot accept what they say? Granted, the feasibleness of an entire community saying such things is hard to believe anyway, but we are only speaking in hypotheticals here anyway. Bignole 21:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

To make some suggestions: I see people who care about both the subject matter and about being good Wikipedians. Let me ask that people use fact tags instead of just reverting, and that we talk about stuff on the talk page if we don't have consensus.

If I see a comment that I believe to be true, but just not sourced well, I either find a better source, or I put a fact tag on it. If I see something I'm skeptical about, I put on a fact tag. Only if I know something to be untrue would I revert it, and even then I'd go to the talk page if I thought it was meant in good faith (i.e. not obvious vandalism). Avt tor 05:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!!!! And back for good...Yes I'm the guy that started the Smallville Revolution, and now I'm back to support my ol' partner Bignole. Hello Arcayne, who do you think you're trying to impose and translate as you wish the Wikipedia just for your own personal ego. Be bold! dude!!! If you want a refreshment how about this:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia

Or since you seem to have amnesia, little of this:

• How to edit a page

As the Wikipedia statement says, there IS verifiable source, Kryptonsite is one, we all Smallville editors know about it. And then you have The CW, the channel that broadcasts Smallville confirming the news, and then you have the actor Phil Morris, and the Gough & Millar, what do you want know... a cite about Oprah talking about the Manhunter on her talk show? Maybe Larry King? C'mon, your reasons are absurd. Just be bold! We're trying to build a decent Smallville article here, following all the rules, there's no more to say. Kudos Bignole for everything you've done for the article and keep fightin' for it. Peace! --Charlie144 05:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, Charlie, if you want to talk to me, do so at my talk page. And honestly, take a moment to talk to me before poking fun. After all, I am not the one with an empty user and discussion page. In spite of that, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and treat with the civility you failed to give me. This is not about ego, and the sooner you realize that and stop transferrring your own self-worth into the equation, the better off we all will be. I do not need a refresher course in what Wikipedia is, or how editing works. Indeed, if your commentsa are any indication, I may have been editing and proofreading well before you were Daddy's Little Squirt, so rein in the sarcasm a bit, sparky. 'Be Bold' doesn't translate to 'Be Sloppy', any more than verifiable means reliable. I would strongly suggest that you actually read the ealier posts on this subject, and acquaint yourself with the profound differences between the two (hint: see the example of the KKK pamphlet). I am guessing that if you do so, you will not see me suggesting that Oprah jump on the sofa about the casting of Martian Manhunter. I am simply insisting that the high standards of WP:RS be maintained. The CW or Kryptonsite or the producers of the show or even the actor do not constitute reliable news sources, and why you may ask? Because they all have a vested interest in making sure a single message is what is released to the public. This message may not be the truth, and the message may be designed to manipulate/generate interest through viral media. Note that this message may not be the truth, and therein lies the problem. There are larger issues here than stamping one's foot at a character's introduction into a tv series. BigNole has admitted his cites were weak and sloppily sought-out, but failed to do anything about them until he was called on it. Dude, using a marketing department for citations is like blaming a White House janitor for the WMD rumors at the Pentagon. If you want to truly build a good article on Smallville (and with only a few exceptions, it is pretty good), then I cannot be the only one insisting on solid reliable citation sources (once again, not the same thing as verifiable citations). To use your term, Be Bold enough to actually do the work, instead of expecting to skate by on boldness alone.Arcayne 07:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

First, please stop saying that I cited that information. The only sources I brought you were the two interviews and the CW sites (just now I gave you TV Guide, TV.com, and IMDb.com which confirm the same thing). The original citation I put up for you was copied from another article. I didn't not claim MY sources were weak, just that the original citation that was being used was. Secondly, under "reliability", please read primary source (this covers the interviews), and Secondary source. Now, you have gone from saying we need "reliable sources" to basically saying that the CW is lying and whatnot. Unfortunately, Wiki doesn't deal in the "truth" but the "verifiability". Since official websites are consistent with the reliability policy, then whatever they post is considered verified. But no, please. you have yet to tell us what YOU think is a reliable "mainstream entertainment" source. You keep saying "you don't have this, it isn't this, it isn't that", but have never once said "it should say so in here". But it does seem general consensus is that YOU are reading that policy incorrectly. Bignole 07:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

BigNole, I have said you cited the information because it is an accurate description of what you did. If you took a citation from a different source (a citation that someone else put together) and used it in another article, you are responsible as well for the relative strength or weakness of that citation. If you have learned nothing else from this, I am guessing you will check your citations a LOT better from now on.

And yes, you did supply me with cites from Imdb, tvguide.com and the rest - all of which are good, mainstream sources. The underlying thunder question here is: why you didn't use these in the first place? They fit the criteria of reliability far better than Comicscontinuum.com or Kryptosite.com (or net). Why did you simply port over what you have since admitted was at best a weak reference instead of putting forth the effort of finding the sources you knew were ? This is what I was talking about when I suggested that being bold does not excuse being lazy. It required me to call you out on the virtual carpet for not citing reliable sources to get you to roll up your sleeves and actually find them, rather than relying on someone else's work. And no, three people does not a concensus make, but I am not going to talk about this supposed concensus you claim to have. I am talking to you without the royalk We; grow a set and extend the same courtesy. I am here to do the work. If you are too, good on ya for that. That is part of the job her at WP. Welcome to the work force. :)

Another point to consider here is one I seem to keep repeating. Perhaps it isn't sinking in, so I will try once again to assist you (because I can be pretty nifty like that). Let's use your reasoning about what makes for reliability. Now, substitute as a website a white surpremacist page, or some Holocaust denial group. To use your logic, the fact that they are a website makes anything they might state on their website both reliable and verified. According to your reasoning, the Holocaust didn't happen, because a "reliable and verifiable" source said it didn't. A reliable source is one that has nothing to lose by reporting the truth. A verifiable source is simply a source that can be verified. A reliable source trumps a verifiable one. The two terms are not synonymous. Is the difference beginning to sink in yet? I mean, this is only the third time I have had to point it out to you...

Of course, you might say that the two aren't the same thing and that you would write about the Holocaust denial reference in the article differently to reflect the citation's less than reliable source and dubious claims. However, you failed to make the equivalent effort with an article that required the same level of do that with the Smallville article. You took a not-quite-reliable source and imparted verifiability to it. Every article in Wikipedia deserves the same level of conscientious attention. Just because it is about entertainment does not relieve one of the responsibility of doing the work.

All that said, you seem to have found good sources for Martian Manhunter being specifically cast in Smallville. Now put them in, and let's move on, shall we?Arcayne 08:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, see here is where YOU are wrong. You keep doing these examples where your subject matter is an opinion. There isn't an "opinion" regarding Phil Morris being MM. He either is, or he isn't, it's as simple as that. Don't try to assume "MY REASONING", and twist what I actually say. Now, you say IMDb is a reliable mainstream source. I find this interesting, that YOU would accept an IMDb source over a CW Network source. The reason is that IMDb is fan submitted material, where as CW info comes directly from the source. IMDb only requires someone to give a reason for the edit and they will include it. They will verify it, of course, but since they once had Aunt May as Carnage for Spider-Man 3, I'm thinking that their verification process is a little skewed. But I love how you are still playing this lazy act, where you cite one policy but are too bummed out to follow the "be bold". You obviously have a vested interest in the articles, and you'd think that if YOU found or saw a more reliable source that YOU'd "be bold" and actually correct them. But, in reality you are being a dick about it, and trying to pick at the reliability of not just 1 source, but an official website source, and 2 personal interviews. For someone so on top of things, and so intelligent, you sure are a bum when it comes to actual edits. I think I've seen more constructive edits from anonymous users, who don't cite anything whatsoever, than I have from you. The funny thing is, you do this high and mighty act, and basically talk about how you know these policies so much better, and know of so many more reliable sources (but never give us these sources names), telling us that there is no mention of him in any mainstream media source (but afterward agree that IMDb is a mainstream source, and he was mentioned there), but yet YOU DO NOT A SINGLE THING to constructively help the article (I hope you like this run-on, I figured your English degree would appreciate it). You simply remove or rewrite it to your liking, until someone finally uses a source that YOU (and only you because I have yet to see anyone else disagreeing with these sources) like, and then you pull the "ok, now put them in" yourself bit. Next time, if you want to be constructive to the article, any article for that matter, bring it up in the Talk page, your services will be better appreciated there. Bignole 09:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Golly...where to start? The bad grammar? Nah, too easy. The personal attacks? Also no, it demonstrates a weak mind and weaker arguments. Tell you what, let's just jump to the crux of your arguments, explain why I have given you at least two separate ways to retire from an argument you aren't even in the zip code of winning, and hope that you either wake up, put up or shut up. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts supported by reliably citable information. I am not going to re-hash why CW or ComincsComtinuum (funny how you left that out, seeing as you originally cited the article with it) or some other fansite is not always that reliable. I am not going to revisit the differences between reliable and verifiable, because you simply don't get it. I take the time to try and explain it to you in no less than three differnt ways, and your brightest move is to call me a dick for it. No worries, I realize it comes from you feeling threatened, and it's just acting out. That being said, lets correct some of the other mistakes you made. You attacked me for suggesting that IMDB was a more reliable source, despite having proposed it as that very thing in an earlier post (forgot that, did you?). Apparently, you think there is only fan forums there, which isn't the case. There is some pretty good stuff there, pretty much like Ain't It Cool News. The difference - once again - is that Ain't It Cool and IMDB articles (not forums but actual articles - I bet you only read it for the pictures, right?) have specialized knowledge without any personal or vested interest in any one story. That is the main point here; whether the news is good or bad, there is no profit or loss from these groups telling the truth. CW's bank accounts depend on having the best possible spin put on their series. They will often test the waters by floating ideas to the public through astroturfing and viral marketing to decide a show's direction. They have done it with Charmed, they have done it with Smallville (floating the idea of Chloe as an alien herself) and they have done it with Gilmour Girls. All networks do it; it is a fact of life in the film ad tv business. It is a fact of life. I strongly suggest you find some method of absorbing that fact and spank whatever inner monkey that is causing you to dense up here. How I choose to contribute to an article is my business, BigNole. Sometimes it is spelling and grammar. Sometimes it is to address NPOV. Sometimes it is to help folks re-navigate themselves back into proper citation and RS. Sometimes it is simply to ask silly, little, ego-driven trolls to WP:TEA have a nice cup of tea and sit down. You have suggested earlier that you went all edit/revert crazy, and that you should take a break and cool down. I am fine, however, but I appreciate your 'concern'. Now I remind you of your own proposal and suggest you take your own advice, go somewhere and chill out. The edit process can be strenuous. No one is faulting you for needing to take a break. Go outside and play catch or something, or kick a hacky-sack around with your dog or cat or hamster (Hacky_sack). You aren't adding something constructive at this point except to toss monkey-poo about. Granted, I am a little better at it than you are, and once you calm down and learn to listen better, I will most likely apologize for having treated you like a toddler. And then all will live happily ever after. The end. :)Arcayne 15:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

3O: An example of a reliable source is: an official website (CWTV for this show?), an example of an unreliable source is TV.com or a Wiki, they are user submitted. An example of a reliable source is an interview with a creator etc, an example of a non-reliable source is the IMDb, it's user submitted as well. If you can not counter these examples, then do not try. Addendum: Big Nole is right, you are wrong, live with it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I 'm going to make an attempt here to play the wise mediator. Forgive me in advance for my mettlesome concern. Considering that a potential edit war has fell by the wayside and is really no longer an issue (as the pesky little adjective that sparked several reversions and ended with Arcayne's desire to announce to all Wikipedia the acquisition of his very unique and impressive "degree in English" - no offense intended pal but that's something I'd keep to yourself), I fail to see why it is necessary to clutter the article's talk page, where it is designed mostly for improvement of said article, with paragraph after paragraph of unholstered condescension and mighty editorial penis flexing. It's really just not productive. Here's an idea. Firstly, Arcayne, swallow the thick viscous pomp that is oozing from your mouth. The both of you, end it and then modify the article so that it appeases both contributers and further disruption can be avoided. Personally, (and I would have loved nothing more for me to have been completely neutral in this) I don't quite see why it even became an issue in the first place. Reliability is mostly a SUBJECTIVE issue - hence why we have such a gunslinger standoff between two Wiki-savvy folk. Remember WP:RS is a guideline, not policy, as is the case for WP:V. Bignole played his role (rhyming not intended) by finding sources that secured interviews by the very people directly involved in creating and working in the project known as Smallville. And how shocking that such interviews would be made available to the public at..gasp... a fansite, or by golly, the official website of the NETWORK that airs the television program. You can quibble about the source's reliability ad infinitum if you'd like, but in the end verifiability was satisfied with aplomb if you ask me. End rant. Wisdom89 18:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And yes, before I get called on it, I am aware that the semantics dispute and the reliability/verifiability discord are separate issues here. My point is that all forms of editorial warring ended right after that squabbling over definitions went the way of the dodo - which I am most thankful for. Wisdom89 18:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, thanks for the "neutral" intercession, Wisdom. You should note that I did try to end the argument 3-4 posts ago, and I guess I got caught up in the relative fun of pimp-slapping BigNole around when he couldn't take the hint. As for the degree in English, it isn't the best degree to have, which is why I picked up two others as well. As for your concerns about RS, I am pretty confident that I am in the right here. I have explained the difference between RS and V - you can lead a horse to water, but I guess you cannot make him think for himself. If you are suggesting that a fansite qualifies as a RS, then I will simply have to agree to disagree. This doesn't mean I won't be making sure the cites aren' solid. If they aren't, i will call the poster on them, giving them a chance to clean them up before they are purged. Or is that too much viscous pomp? Arcayne 18:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Info on a fansite is generally not "reliable", but an interview with said individuals is a different matter. This is why I have repeatedly told you that it is subjective. What you do for an article on the say the KKK, does not translate to an article on any work of fiction. If you read through the RS guideline, which I know you have several times or you wouldn't be here, you will see that it focuses on sources for articles about "real" topics (i.e. biographies, companies, etc). The nature of sources for those topics is not equivalent to the topic of works of fiction. This is why we have different Manuals of Style for different topics. That's why it is different to use the official website of the KKK (i'm using them because you like to cite them as an example) over using the official website of a television series. Also, note that we were not posting "rumors", but verifiable evidence. The fact that you do not like the reliability of that verified information is subjective to you. Now, I take the blame for rehashing a site that I didn't check into originally (the comicscontinuum), but I provided you with interviews with the individuals involved. Again, this wouldn't be like an interview with Mel Gibson and him telling us why he said such horrible things about Jews, because again that is an opinion. I didn't provide an interview with Phil Morris going "well I think..."; the interview was about his experience with that part (e.g. it was confirmed that he was doing the part). On one side note, you constantly cite my "grammar" issues, but I'd like you to know that all papers I submit to my professors generally come back with perfect grammar. There is a difference between proofing a paper that you are going to get a grade on, and general discussion with people on a talk page. I apologize if my lack of proofing has mislead you in my ability to write. Back on topic, the point is that you have to use judgement per article. Not every guideline works for every article, that is why it is a guideline and not policy. Bignole 18:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how much of this litle téte-a-téte could have been avoided had you initially responded like you just did; I am guessing that it would have mostly been an academic discussion without the all the snippy. I appreciate you finally addressing my disagreement with your inadvertant usage of a bad citation more or less politely. Contributing to WP is not an ego thing for me (and never has been), but I don't suffer (perceived) rudeness or fools easily. While I understand that you feel the need for different 'Manuals of Style' for different types of articles, I continue to think that thoughtful yet simple extrapolation of the basic principle of RS and V avoid the sorts of issues we have encountered here. I think that with entertainment, while not as thundering an issue as, say world politics or the like, the same principles that govern Wikipedia in one most areas must govern these two topics equally. Beyond the basic premise of a neutral encyclopedia, there is the concern of opening WP up litigation from posting libelous or incorrect material either cited improperly or cited from a source with a biased agenda. There is also the worrisome potential of WP being devalued as a source by not making every effort to utilize the best possible sources and citations for the articles. These concerns are what guide me, and not any sort of ego. Were you to know me outside of this medium, you would know that, while I think I maintain my dignity, I tend to act with the understanding that ego is not a life-affirming thing. Perhaps I have unfairly judged you. I know you contribute a lot, and most of your contributions have been pretty solid. Since we seem to knock heads on certain issues, it might be helpful for us to talk to each other before editing the other's contributions for a while, until we have a better feel for their editing style and intuition. I am prepared to set this argument aside, if you are.Arcayne 20:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right; a lot of this could have been avoided had I clearly defined what I meant by "subjective". I do not mean to imply that the guideline is subjective itself, but that it's use is subjective to individual articles. How you classify "reliable" to one topic may not apply to another. Obviously there is a basic premise for reliability and verifiability, and that shouldn't be lost. I agree that, in the best interest of all articles, it would be wise for us to discuss things first hand initially. As far as I'm concern, and the same appears to be said for you, this arguement done. It should probably be archived anyway (it's rather excessive in length, to which we are both guilty of contributing to "lack of constructive" discussion for this topic. Bignole 20:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd post tonight that, after all that about citing good references about Martian Manhunter last week, this week's episode actually said the words. I had to laugh out loud, and i thought BigNole might have as well.Arcayne 06:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I did.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  12:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Level of detail

I somewhat agree with Bignole. At a minimum, some of the character detail about Clark could go onto the page for Clark, instead of the main page. Avt tor 04:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Recurring Characters

Just a minor thing: should there be a way to show when a recurring character like Lionel or Lois joined the regular cast?LadySatine 22:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean?Arcayne 08:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Like Lois going from recurring to becoming a regular cast member

LadySatine 22:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Silver Kryptonite

Rather than have low-grade edit war begin over the subject, perhaps both sides can explain their reasoning behind inclusion/exclusion of silver kryptonite. Be aware that in order to make it into the article, someone is going to need to cite sources (keeping in mind verifiability and the reliability of sources (WP:RS).Arcayne 08:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Its inclusion isn't what should be up in the air, but rather its explaination of origin. It was named in the show as silver kryptonite, whether it legitimately was or not. It's obvious that it came from Brainiac, but that inclusion would need some reliable source. Not really sure where to get such a thing, because I'm sure people don't usually talk about such a minor detail during a Q&A.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  11:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well then, how about mentioning its existence without alluding to its origins: "Silver kryptonite has been seen in (insert episode name here) but it's origins are unspecific."Arcayne 12:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that. I don't think we should abandon a search for a source that can reliably verify the origin, but that should do for now. That's the problem when it comes to verifying fictional information. Maybe it's something that can be brought up on the WikiProject Television page, something about how the episode shows this, but doesn't explicitly say so ...yada yada.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  12:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to add it, or shall I? I don't know the name of the episode it showed up in.Arcayne 13:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Took care of it.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  13:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Powers (more specific Kal-El's flight)

There somes to be some diress about whether to include Kal-El's flight in regards to Clark's powers. Will all parties involved please leave your reasoning for removing or keeping here so that others may read and come to a consensus about what to do. Thank you.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  15:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with Kal-El flying having a place under Clark's powers, even though it wasn't Clark who wasn't flying, because it is interesting to note that Clark remembered the event after he became himself again and he was scared of what he might become. He said that if Kal-El could fly, then he wasn't sure what he couldn't do, and the idea scared him. The only reason I think that it should be removed in the first place is because so many other events have been removed as random bits of trivia. The fact that Clark woke up one morning floating over his bed. Although he didn't do it consciously and the event was never followed up again afterwards, Clark has usually learned to fly in other Superman stories by accident, which means he didn't do it conscioulsy. If people feel that the hovering thing isn't important, then I can agree, too. But if Clark achieving flight as himself isn't important, then a Kal-El who is fully aware of the extent of his abilities, and therefore not Clark Kent, shouldn't be included either. I hope that someone else writes something now, otherwise this isn't going to go anywhere. Freddie1988 14 February 2007

The "hovering" thing is more interesting to note now that you mention that "accidental discovery" theory in other mediums. I think the hovering could be included if we could get reliable sources verifying "accidental discovery" in other mediums. It would show a connection to other mediums as to how he learns to fly. Obviously, we can cite Superman Returns as one, because watching the film proves that he didn't do it on purpose (as he did in the original Superman film), but we couldn't leave it with just one source. I think the main contention is that we are going to run into "trivia" type information when it comes to fictional television shows that are based on comic book characters.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  15:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That was my only concern. I could say it until I was blue in the face, as could anyone else, but it wouldn't matter because without sources then anyone could just discount the whole thing. In Superman: Birthright he discovers he can fly when his dog accidentally pushes him off of a cliff, but instead of falling he just floats at ground level. Or, what used to be ground level, to his surprise. Freddie1988 14 February 2007

Try filling this out {{Comic book reference | writer=[[Stan Lee|Lee, Stan]] | penciller=[[Jack Kirby|Kirby, Jack]] | inker=[[Christopher Rule|Rule, Christopher]] | story=The Fantastic Four! | title=[[The Fantastic Four]] | volume=1 | issue=1 | date=[[November]], [[1961]] | publisher=[[Marvel Comics]] | page=3 | panel=2 }}. I assume you must have it if you know what happens (I could be wrong). Anyway, fill out the template I gave you at the bottom, just substitute the appropriate information, and we'll keep track of all the sources that verify his "accidental discovery". In the least, if we use it or not, we'll have proof that it's a common occurance for him to discover his ability to fly in that manner.

Howdy. Read all the talk page stuff, and it seems I rather confused you with someone who posted a bunch of nonsense earlier. You aren't that person, so I wanted you to know off the bat that the edits are not some dig at you.

I notice that you mentioned that Clark remembered the event of flying while as Kal. Could you name that ep (along with season)? I will get a copy and check it out myself. It was my understanding that the producers said unequivocally that Clark wasn't going to be flying in the Smallville series at all (ie, the 'no tights, no flights' quotation stuff). I was just as surprised as you when there was an episode when someone comes back through the cavern to gather up pieces of the artifact.

While it is Clark's body, the person inside doesn't act like Clark, and doesn't identify himself as such to Martha Kent before jetting off. While speculation runs rampant on who was doing the actual driving (some say Zod hijacked Clark's body, while others suggest he was brainwashed, and some say it was the Keebler Elves - however, the smart money says no on the last one), it is clear that it is not Clark. I think the fact that Clark is wearing black, reminiscent of when he is hopped up on Red Kryptonite is significant, as the producers make sure to distinguish when Clark is not necessarily himself. The reason I don't think it is Clark under the influence of red K is that this person identifies himself as Kal-El, and not Kal.

While in this altered state, he uses the full range of the powers we have come to associate with the Superman of comics and movies - flight, vaccuum tolerance, speed, vision, etc. As well, while asleep early in an early episode, Clark awakens to discover he is floating above the bed, implying that whatever ability it is that allows Superman to fly is beginning to develop, sort of like Kryptonian puberty. This tells us something, although it is OR by deduction. Clark is completely capable of doing these things. He simply does not have the fine control that Jor-El's training would provide...training that whoever had hijacked his body was able to access. Training that only a Kryptonian would have, like Zod or Jor-El.

This is why I added the edit that I did. It may have been Clark's Kryptonian body doing the flying but it sure was not Clark doing the driving, even if he recalls it. Now that might seem like a fine line, but I don't think so. We have catalogued the abilities that Clark has developed over the course of the series. The flight thing was anachronistic, without the trial and error we see in every movie or past incarnation of the tv show where Clark learns he can fly. It just emerges full-blown by someone who is not acting like Clark (and calls himself Kal-El) but seems fully aware of Kryptonian abilities on Earth.

I don't know if it can be supported by citations, due to the nature of reviews about fictional characters and the episodic nature of tv shows. I agree with Bognole that the amount of sources available would be scant, while their necessity would be great. I think it is best to make the distinction between Clark and Kal-El when discussing the instance of flight until we can clarify with sources who was actually driving Clark's body. (jeez guys, let a guy post w/out getting hit with edit conflict three times - lol)Arcayne 16:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Superman:Birthright miniseries, I think it has been argued (successfully) that that series approached the Superman mythos exclusively from the alien point of view; ie, he is a Kryptonian pretending to be a hooman. I think that citing comic series is a slippery slope, because someone is eventually going to bring up the Electric Blue and Red Superman (for which the creators of that particular development are in dire need of a beating). Every series has a writer pushing their own pov, and it is ften retconned by the very next writer.Arcayne 16:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The episode was "Crusade". While visiting his father at the end of the episode he mentioned that he remembered. As for the citations for "hovering" or "accidental discovery". I think they would be used for comparison purposes between mediums, and not as saying "see this IS how it starts". But, like I said, if we don't use them, at least we have them for later.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  16:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I think. Until we are able to concretely verify that the hovering incident was Clark beginning to realize his power of flight by accident or that Kal-El flying meant that Clark was flying as well, it should just remain out of the article until there is enough evidence to support them. Freddie1988 14 February 2007

I am not sure that is the best path to follow here. The fact is, Welling's character has in fact hovered and flown. Perhaps - until it can be properly referenced - we can treat these instances like we did the silver Kryptonite, making reference to instances without categorizing them. Sound good?Arcayne 02:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me.Freddie1988 5:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Do you want to do the honors, or do you want me to do it? I think you should, since you were such a champ at working it out. :)Arcayne 23:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations for "hovering"

• {{cite video | people=Bryan Singer (Director) | title = Superman Returns | medium = DVD | publisher =Warner Brothers | date = 2006 }}

Move DVD table

Now that there is a Smallville DVD releases (good stuff), maybe the table in this article can be moved there. I always thought it looked out of place and cluttered things a bit. I think it would be more useful in Smallville DVD releases. Srfanone 12:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Move the table (er..delete since the table is already over there..and if the other is missing something then just add it). Keep all prose information here (anything in the paragraph).  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  13:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Birthright statements

I just read something odd under the Other Media section:

The comic book limited series Superman: Birthright introduces some elements from Smallville into comic book continuity. For instance, Clark and Lex are friends before becoming arch nemeses like in the series.

While Birthright was indeed a good series, it was not the first time that a boyhood relationship was noted. In fact, a boyhood friendship existed almost fifty years ago between Superboy and Lex. Back in the so-called Silver Age, Lex's backstory was very similar to that presented in Birthright. I think it should be removed as inaccurate. On a side note, I think that Lex Luthor: Man of Steel as quite awesome, making Lex seem almost reasonable. Which is creepy in and of itself.Arcayne 05:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be listed with both of them? I think it would be worth mentioning, if Clark and Lex's boyhood friendship isn't widespread throughout the series. Disinclination 07:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the connection is worth mentioning, but not as one arising out of the other. We are presented with two separate media both delving into the origins of Clark's (Superboy's) relationship with Lex. Both are different, but share that commonality.Arcayne 14:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)